Skip to main content
9:30 pm
follow-up letter. does anybody need a break? we will -- let's take a break after we get through this agenda item and then we'll resume. do you want to introduce this matter mr. sacrum? speaker: a couple of the commissioners want a specialized interest in this act taken by the commission on a prior date for the purposes of determining whether you were interested in requesting an update on follow-up actions by the mayor so the thought expressed was that possibly a follow-up letter would be drafted and sent. the staff took the liberty in drafting a letter for the commissioners to consider and edit provided you
9:31 pm
even decide to send one. speaker: any comments on the commissioners? mr.: i think we should send the letter and i think we have comments about the specifics of the not we at least have a voice set on typewriter. commissioner: i would add to the letter which the staff did a very fine job of but i think i would add in the last paragraph after what's written language to this effect. alternatively i request you advice the commission as to the reasons why you decline to take any action in respect to
9:32 pm
miss g o /ph* go /phezs conduct. speaker: commissioner souther land: if we're he hadilitying i think the phrase was i would say with the authority or power rather than ability and um, i guess i wish that i had and i didn't go back to see our specific vote or the letter that we sent initially but is the wording of the last
9:33 pm
sentence of the paragraph recommend that you remove her from appointed conduct from office, that's the language that we used before. speaker: yes it is. speaker: okay. speaker: any other comments? i have a suggestion and i don't feel particularly strong about it but i wonder whether we need the first sentence of the third paragraph -- i'm not sure that we requested that the mayor keep us informed, did we? speaker: yeah. speaker: so the mayor may or not have give us a response if we asked him to
9:34 pm
speaker: he doesn't have a requirement. speaker: right so i would suggest we strike that first sentence and begin the third paragraph with i am writing and add commissioners sentence at the end of that. and then it's typical that the chair would sign an act of the commission speaker: either the chair would sign or you could delegate someone to sign. i'm fine with that for logistics purposes. that would certainly be easier. speaker: i think you should sign speaker: you think i should sign? speaker: i don't think we've ever had all five do that speaker: you should
9:35 pm
sign speaker: i have two more suggestions for you to add. first i testified before this body before and mrs. go mess when i con grad lated her to be the first person to be referred for official misconduct i said sunshine task force in which you actually held a meeting and she didn't like my sarcasm which is too bad and that's too bad and her response bending over to pick up her book bag and jacket, she had come to strike me with her coat. what's the phrase? you don't have to have batteries to have assault. her behavior was reprehensible
9:36 pm
and it has sat stingingly reprehensible for over a year while you've waited for the mayor to get back to you. one suggestion is to put in your letter to the mayor is to ask for an explanation from mrs. go mess why she thought that behavior in a public forum was -- what's the phrase? right conduct bee fitting an officer of the city blah, blah, blah, you know the phrase the mayor used? was that right action of a public official? the second question you should ask him on my behalf if you'd like in your letter is to ask him why he hasn't taken any
9:37 pm
action on miss go mess who was found by two bodies both of them ethical over set boundaries which both concluded she had engaged in official misconduct and when that was brought to the mayors attention he chose to do nothing in stark contrast to what he did to official [indiscernible] and we're still wondering. you can't charge the sheriff with official misconduct over false charges and then let a library commission president off the hook for proven charges. speaker: thank you very much. i
9:38 pm
do have graphic presentation but there are only two reel points i want to make. first of all, with respect to official misconduct in general, there have been questions about the appending charges against the elected sheriff about whether it was related to his office and whether he acted in his official capacity with respect to mrs. go mess there is no question this took place at an official public meeting and that she was conducting the office that she was appointed to while this was happening but more importantly the mayor removed while charges were
9:39 pm
pending yet he did nothing, not even make a response after miss go mess was found guilty. you may remember that after this happened there was an altercation in which some comments of mrs. go mess was posted on the library website and my democracy on demonstration is a little bit slow here. this is more than the tip of the iceberg. this is a tip -- i've played this once before but there may be people who haven't heard it yet. video clip: [indiscernible]
9:40 pm
speaker: you have to understand that not only is she discussing her possible revenge but she took that revenge by filing a /tprad lent police report against the speaker which wasn't me. the only accountability that she is susceptible to and there's no response at all that effectively rat and when the mayor does not respond in any way he's basically saying it doesn't rise to the level of his attention. he's basically ratifying it. well that's like
9:41 pm
a referee taking a punch at somebody. everyone just go home. thank you very much. speaker: library association first of all certainly do send the letter. i appreciate that you do have it. i only wish it would have come sooner and i do hope you've repeated followups and as a previous speaker said, thank you for the petition that was suggested by commissioner /repby. the sunshine task force was essentially that her behavior in the room was so shocking and so intimidating that others not myself or the previous speaker said that they were actually
9:42 pm
intimidated and did not make public comment on an item that they had actually come to make public comment on and it was the item generally speaking that was under discussion by the person who had been violently shouted down. in addition, as the previous speaker mentioned, there was a whole series of follow-up one hardly knows how to describe the behavior that followed but um, -- which is to say the police report, the apparent and it was witnessed by somebody else that we heard from at that time about the attempt to hit
9:43 pm
mr. mow nay and my mind is going blank at the moment. not only was miss go mess reappointed to the library commission but earlier this year following your letter and the sunshine task force, mrs. go mess was nominated as the only nominee by the other library commissioners who are all appoint tees of the mayors office and was reelected unanimously as chair of the library commission. i would urge you not only to send this very promptly but to make it even stronger if you can find it to do so and i would say that the mayor has taken action in connection with this matter. he has reappointed miss go mess
9:44 pm
and he has allowed presumably his offices appoint tees to rea /hrebgt a reelect her without any point. if you can make this even stronger and undertake to do this more than once a year i think that would be terrific. this is good and i appreciate you doing this letter. speaker: is there a motion to approve the letter as amended. all in favor? the motion passes. we'll take a short break. we'll spea
9:45 pm
back in session. the next item on the agenda is consideration of ethics complaint numbers eight one one zero eight one six and zero 911 zero eight one six. we have recommendations. speaker: before we proceed with items five, i would ask the commissions permission to be excused from any of the proceedings actually with item five, six and seven as has been pointed out correctly my wife both as city attorney and in
9:46 pm
her private capacity has been closely associated with lieu gun awe hospital and is also chair of the lagoon awe /hopbd awe foundation. i for the record will tell you i have no idea what any of those complaints are about , i have not spoken with any of the staff and have not looked at any of the papers associated with items five and six but i would think it more appropriate receipt if i'm excused. i am more than willing to go in the back while you are considering those items or with the permission of the commission that i be excused from the balance of the meeting as the
9:47 pm
items eight through twelve do not appear to be of census but i'm happy to stay if you want me to stay but i would like to be excused from the consideration of those three items. speaker: i certainly have no exception to you being excused from the remainder of the items. anyality net view from any of the commissioners? thank you. we need to make a motion and vote. we need to make a motion as to whether -- is there a motion to except commissioners accuse al? we have to take public comment. speaker: i just want to understand further that the commissioner may have bias in
9:48 pm
the matter. i would urge a no vote on the motion and have commissioner continue to participate if he believes he might be biased in the matter then that would result in a different conclusion. in general, i would rather have people participate if it makes sense that he can. i appreciate his cautions and that's my comment. thanks. speaker: thank you commissioner remy for being the gentlemen they are. speaker: all in favor everyone: i speaker: proposed? hearing none.
9:49 pm
we have recently received a memo that is from mr. shaw and we just got it over the weekend. and i confess i have not had an opportunity to efficiently review it. mr. shaw i don't know if i can ask you some questions about it? speaker: commissioner may i draw your attention to the data on the letter? it should not have taken for over the weekend for you to look at it but be that as it may there are questions? speaker: is this addressed only to both the
9:50 pm
complaint against mr. saint /tproeu -- speaker: both memos are identical except towards the end. speaker: but your view is they are directed both to saint /tproeu and [indiscernible] speaker: absolutely and both dated september nineteenth, um, pretty much in a nutshell indicate that because charter section c3 dot six nine nine dash one three applies only to the ethics laws and not to the public access laws as was held in the allen gross man verses
9:51 pm
san francisco ethics commission memorandum of points and authorities petition for preemptory mandate october fifth 2009 which was settled in mr. gross man's favor, c3 dot six nine nine dash thirteen was relied on by both the controllers office and by the ethics commissioner mr. saint c r o y as being their main claim that they had an exception but it is not upheld by [indiscernible] and the majority of their case plied on
9:52 pm
this and because of that i am going to repeat what i said in public comment of this meeting tonight that i don't believe this matter should be before you whatsoever for a number of reasons which i'll get to. speaker: mr. shaw the other thing i've realized is that the city attorney hasn't had an opportunity to review it either and it's not his fault and me not reviewing it is my fault. speaker: it's not entirely your fault because of the timeline speaker: mr. shaw let me finish. i don't think it fair to you or fair to the process for me to try to read it on the fly and figure it out. i propose that we put it over and i apology to my fellow
9:53 pm
commissioners for that request and especially with only three of us here i propose we pull it over. speaker: supervisor weener has claimed that the sunshine task force didn't happen their agenda properly and that charge could legally be against the commission as well and if you are going to request to postpone which i would probably entertain, i would like you to consider -- speaker: we don't need to consult you. we're going to put it over. speaker: i know but i don't think you should hear this case at all. my case should have been assigned to a different jurisdiction for /-td entire process. it's not that another jurisdiction gets to write a recommendation which then comes back to you and while you still have a conflict
9:54 pm
of interest -- speaker: commissioner i'm going to stop you there. i understand your viewpoint. we may put this over at which point you'll have your opportunity to speak on it speaker: on whether it will be transferred to a different jurisdiction? speaker: yes speaker: absolutely speaker: commissioners? are you okay to hold it over? in addition, i understand that there is precedent for the commission handling a matter that has been investigated by a different entity, a different body. i don't know before we take it up the next time if you can tell me whether or not there is such precedent? that would be helpful. speaker: off the top
9:55 pm
of my head i do recall one precedent. i think a couple years ago there was a filing complaint against the /eblg i cans commission of staff and at that time we asked and generously received a sis tense which provided a recommendation which came back before this commission. that's the only one that comes to the top of my head. i don't remember. i think there may have been others but that's the one that comes to my mind. speaker: okay so in light of all this let's put that over. i apologize especially to you mr. shaw for bringing this up now.
9:56 pm
the next item on the agenda -- do we take public comment for holding it over? okay public comment: doctor occur i was one of the whistle blowers that reported miss appropriations from the patient gift fund. mr. shaw is accurate here that deputy city attorney jerry made an error in his memo, instruction al memo and it's easy to make that error because we had two whistle blower complaints, one a conflict of city interest and one miss appropriation of patient funds from the gift fund and mr. freight mixed those up and this
9:57 pm
request for documents related to a complaint of the gift fund, miss appropriations does not have anything to do with conflict of interest. speaker: war field, i am very disappointed that at nine forty at night we learn that something that was known at the beginning of the meeting is cause for skipping an item on the agenda. perhaps the chair thought that he would be reading mr. shaws letter and analyzing it some time during the meeting. from what i know, i doubt it. my sense of him is that he's attempting to be thorough and fair so i'm very
9:58 pm
disappointed that this couldn't have been announced at the very beginning of the meeting. thank you. speaker: can i get public comment on my own item, two minutes of your time? speaker: i would like to apologize to you on behalf of mr. weener. you were dragged down here and thrown into over time when it could have been avoided. now potentially the city controller may have misled you on flex time since she is not being paid time and a half for whatever her hourly salary is whether that's fifty dollars an hour or eighty dollars an hour. soup vicar weener was quite per /terbed that cities employees time was waited in front of the
9:59 pm
sunshine task force when respondents wouldn't show up. where is san jose city attorney? how does that work? speaker: she was going to appear by phone. maybe that's who was trying to call. speaker: yeah so because your proposed regulations say that you are going to transfer these cases to another jurisdiction as they come up i would like to remind the deputy city attorney, his name escapes me at the moment, that while you may have one precedent in front of you this doesn't mean that it was handled in an ethical manner. you may want to this time refer the whole case to

September 30, 2012 9:30pm-10:00pm PDT

TOPIC FREQUENCY Mr. Shaw 6, Us 2, Tproeu 2, San Francisco 1, City 1, Spea 1, San Jose City 1, Mr. Sacrum 1, Jerry 1, Souther 1, Repby 1
Network SFGTV
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 89 (615 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 528
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color